volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
@evewrites but the DNC did do this.
The DNC chose Harris without consulting us through a democratic process, and she was obviously, obviously a bad candidate. A lot of us were yelling that from the beginning. We were begging the DNC not to choose her because she was going to be a bad candidate.
The DNC powers chose her anyway.
And we should not let those powerful people off the hook.
Yes, the DNC did this. I don't know why you're trying to say they didn't.
@messaroundmarx shareholders do have individual property rights!
@RD4Anarchy @slowenough @HeavenlyPossum @dagb @True_Heresy @CheapPontoon
I honestly think there is something wrong with #Harris
Listening to her giving her concession speech she honestly doesn't sound like she cares at all that she lost. She doesn't seem to be invested in this at all. It's kind of sociopathological.
I think that's part of why she lost, but seriously, what's wrong with this?
https://www.youtube.com/live/WckEFzGku0Q?si=oZd5jW-O7TFpQcCf
@solarbird Well that's not true at all.
Harris was a terrible candidate, she was an authoritarian promising openly to override the democratic process If she didn't get her way from the people, and the people said that wasn't cool.
Harris couldn't explain how she would rule, she just insisted that she would rule, and a lot of people were not okay with that. Lord knows I wasn't.
The Democratic Party nominated Harris without talking to all of us, they nominated an authoritarian that we are not on board with, and so the party needs to be held accountable for this terrible mistake.
But it's wrong to say that the US voted for a fundamentalist authoritarian. No. It just voted against an authoritarian who had no business anywhere near the Oval Office, that should never have been nominated in the first place.
I have no idea what to do now
@moira you have it backwards, though.
The problem was that Harris was promising to be an authoritarian leader, and Americans rejected that.
@SheepOverboard@mastodon.au Oh they're reading traditional media all right. They just see that traditional media is telling them lies, gaslighting them.
And that's the problem with traditional media these days.
Traditional media tells us stuff that is so quickly debunked, and so traditional media should really shape up because that's not a good situation.
@HeavenlyPossum Well that's not true at all.
It's the exact opposite.
Ownership is a right not to be interfered with. Ownership only comes up when somebody is trying to interfere with your dictate over some property. You're not interfering with them, they are interfering with you.
That is the fundamental aspect of ownership.
@RD4Anarchy by definition it is.
@slowenough @HeavenlyPossum @dagb @True_Heresy @CheapPontoon
Sounds like it's a semantic thing. An issue of definition.
What is ownership? I would say that ownership is defined as the ability to direct a resource. If you own an apple, that means that you can dictate whether that apple goes into apple cider or an apple pie. That is the definition of ownership that I think is the common understanding.
And so the definition of management has a strong overlap with it. The only difference might come down to the authority being delegated. Technically you might not be the owner but practically the owner has granted you effective ownership.
So anyway, sounds like you're getting lost in definition.
@moira The key is, presidents simply don't have authority to do a lot of this stuff.
And in the examples where they do have such authority we need to learn the lesson of, we really need to push legislatures to take that authority away.
It was always a mistake to give presidents too much authority, and neither Trump nor Harris can do a lot of the things that they are promising.
But yeah, let's keep firmly in mind that this is why we don't give presidents that kind of authority, and we need to not give them more authority, and we need to take it back.
@HeavenlyPossum thinking your mind of anything you consider productive.
Chances are it involved some resource that somebody owned.
YES ownership is productive. Ownership directs resources toward productive uses where otherwise they would be lost in the chaos of uncertainty as to where they would go.
It's just economically illiterate to say that ownership is not productive.
@drrjv muskbach Twitter because he's a troll. He bought it as an act of trolling everybody. He wanted to get attention, and the more you bring him up, the more he proves successful in that.
He thinks that's funny. That's how trolls work.
@HeavenlyPossum so if you think about it none of that has anything to do with anything I said.
@True_Heresy Hi. Welcome to reality.
@PFox so here's the thing, news flash, Trump says a lot of things that aren't true.
@jensorensen The ACA is not on the ballot this election, for better or worse.
Yes, there has been misinformation about this to scare people. We need to push back against that misinformation.
Whoever told you this was fear-mongering and manipulating you, and you should probably stop listening to them.
@Infrogmation you notice how that quote doesn't logically imply the headline?
No, that quote doesn't admit that. It's a straw man argument that requires a logical leap to get to a sensationalized headline.
@True_Heresy you are literally describing Musk making things.
What you describe is Musk making the environments that support those engineers. That's not nothing! Without workshops and funding and management the best engineers in the world are completely wasted.
It sounds like you really don't appreciate how the real world works when it comes to going from engineering talent to actual results.
The most capable machinist ever to have lived will get nothing done if he doesn't have tooling to operate. And that's what capitalism is all about, investing the resources to get the machinist what he needs.
@HeavenlyPossum I mean, the factual record shows that he did.
Imagine knowing history.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
